Possible to run a 4:05 mile on 40 miles a week average? Never going above 50?
Possible to run a 4:05 mile on 40 miles a week average? Never going above 50?
Bannister ran 3:59.4 on about 25 miles/week.
Er... wrote:
Bannister ran 3:59.4 on about 25 miles/week.
OK, fair. Why aren't more people with similar goals training like that? Does an additional 30+ miles a week contribute that much more to middle distance performance?
I'm sure if you look around here you'll find detailed discussions of the issue; I can't recall one from the past several years but I'm sure they're here.
If Bannister broke 4 on almost exclusively intervals, maxing out at about 25 miles/week, what could he have run on a modern track with modern shoes, training, diet, etc? if he ran 75 miles/week would he have been a 3:54 miler?
How fast could Webb have run on a training program like Bannister's instead of his?
Most people aren't as naturally gifted or willing to run to the point of exhaustion like RB was.
Er... wrote:
If Bannister broke 4 on almost exclusively intervals, maxing out at about 25 miles/week, what could he have run on a modern track with modern shoes, training, diet, etc? if he ran 75 miles/week would he have been a 3:54 miler?
How fast could Webb have run on a training program like Bannister's instead of his?
Both awesome questions. Unfortunately, both without answers. I keep flipping back and forth. I sometimes think that higher mileage can take "the edge" off of racing a single mile. Other times running excess mileage seems like a waste of valuable training time that could be spent on more specific workouts.
Sir Roger Bannister wrote:
Most people aren't as naturally gifted or willing to run to the point of exhaustion like RB was.
He certainly was gifted. I would argue, however, that most highly competitive runners are willing to run to exhaustion.
[quote]clean dirt wrote:
OK, fair. Why aren't more people with similar goals training like that? Does an additional 30+ miles a week contribute that much more to middle distance performance?[/quote
Let's suppose that Runner X is a hobby jogger who has built a good base and clones himself, calls his clone Runner Y. Suppose that Runner X and Runner Y are going to embark on identical training plans, the only difference being that Runner X will do easy runs of 4 miles and Runner Y will do easy runs of 10 miles. That amounts to a difference of around 30 miles per week. I reckon that Runner Y would end up only marginally faster than Runner X, and only for the fact that Runner Y will be burning 3000 extra more calories per week and thus have lost a little extra weight (assuming he had excess body weight to lose and assuming the extra miles didn't cause him to overeat). Since there's never an "All other things being equal" situation like the one here, the takeaway is that an additional 30 miles doesn't mean much at all if they're just "filler" miles. For most hobby joggers I think it's a good idea to do a ton of cross training in place of filler miles.
That makes some sense. But what about comparing identical higher level athletes (not hobby joggers). I think it is safe to assume that any runner who is in 4:05 or below shape probably has lower level single digit body fat. So, still assuming identical runners, the extra caloric burn is not going to contribute to an increase in performance as there is no weight to lose. The question now becomes: Does the extra mileage directly contribute to an increase in performance (in terms of muscles, tendons, lungs, heart). Do you still think cross training is superior to more mileage for high level athletes?
dirty paws wrote:
[quote]clean dirt wrote:
OK, fair. Why aren't more people with similar goals training like that? Does an additional 30+ miles a week contribute that much more to middle distance performance?[/quote
Let's suppose that Runner X is a hobby jogger who has built a good base and clones himself, calls his clone Runner Y. Suppose that Runner X and Runner Y are going to embark on identical training plans, the only difference being that Runner X will do easy runs of 4 miles and Runner Y will do easy runs of 10 miles. That amounts to a difference of around 30 miles per week. I reckon that Runner Y would end up only marginally faster than Runner X, and only for the fact that Runner Y will be burning 3000 extra more calories per week and thus have lost a little extra weight (assuming he had excess body weight to lose and assuming the extra miles didn't cause him to overeat). Since there's never an "All other things being equal" situation like the one here, the takeaway is that an additional 30 miles doesn't mean much at all if they're just "filler" miles. For most hobby joggers I think it's a good idea to do a ton of cross training in place of filler miles.